https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338395 Penalty under Rule 209A read with Rule 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the Revenue relied only on an alleged statement that the appellant or his representative had signed joint price declarations. The signatures on the declarations did not match the specimen signatures on record, no authorisation letter or identifying particulars of the signatory were produced, and no effective effort was made to identify or examine the actual signatory. The alleged admission was treated as unreliable because of overwriting and the absence of independent corroboration. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the appellant's involvement in undervaluation and duty evasion was not established, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 18:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338395 Penalty under Rule 209A read with Rule 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the Revenue relied only on an alleged statement that the appellant or his representative had signed joint price declarations. The signatures on the declarations did not match the specimen signatures on record, no authorisation letter or identifying particulars of the signatory were produced, and no effective effort was made to identify or examine the actual signatory. The alleged admission was treated as unreliable because of overwriting and the absence of independent corroboration. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the appellant's involvement in undervaluation and duty evasion was not established, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338395